Search results

The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential geographic locations for ecotourism activities and to select the best one among alternatives.

The proposed model consists of four sequential phases. In the first phase, different geographic criteria are determined based on existing literature, and data are gathered using GIS. On equal criteria weighing, alternative locations are determined using GIS in the second phase. In the third phase, the identified criteria are weighted using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) by various stakeholders of potential ecotourism sites. In the fourth phase, the PROMETHEE method is applied to determine the best alternative based on the weighted criteria.

A framework including four sequential steps is proposed. Using real data from the Black Sea region in Turkey, the authors test the applicability of the evaluation approach and compare the best alternative obtained by the proposed method for nine cities in the region. Consequently, west of Sinop, east of Artvin and south of the Black Sea region are determined as very suitable locations for ecotourism.

The first limitation of the study is considered the number of included criteria. Another limitation is the use of deterministic parameters that do not cope with uncertainty. Further research can be conducted for determining the optimum locations for different types of tourism, e.g. religion tourism, hunting tourism and golf tourism, for effective tourism planning.

The proposed approach can be applied to all area that cover the considered criteria. The approach has been tested in the Black Sea region (nine cities) in Turkey.

Using the proposed approach, decision-makers can determine locations where environmentally responsible travel to natural areas to enjoy and appreciate nature that promotes conservation have a low visitor impact and provide for beneficially active socioeconomic involvement of local individuals.

To the best knowledge of the authors, this is the first study which applies a GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for ecotourism site selection.

The purpose of this study is to measure the R&D performance of 81 cities in Turkey by using a scientific approach.

A four-step solution approach is developed for this problem. In the first step, a hierarchical structure of 14 indicators (including number of patents, publications, R&D expense, etc.) in three dimensions is constructed. In the second step, explicitly and implicitly spatial indicators such as university location and R&D manpower are mapped by using geographic information system (GIS). In the third step, a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model, namely, DANP that combines decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and analytic hierarchy process (ANP) techniques is applied to assign different level of importance to the indicators. In the last step, Višekriterijumska Optimizacijai kompromisno Rešenje (VIKOR) method is used to rank the performance of 81 cities. Obtained results are visualized using GIS to show the pros and cons of each city in terms of R&D performance.

Results of the paper show that Istanbul, Ankara and Konya are ordered as contenders of best R&D performances and on the contrary, Igdir, Sirnak and Tunceli are ordered as the worst R&D performances among 81 cities.

One limitation of the study can be the considered criteria. However, all the criteria are obtained from literature and experts; thus, the paper covers as much criteria as possible.

The proposed study may allow Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkey to formulate more effective strategies to improve cities’ R&D performance. In addition, any country can apply the same methodology for measuring the R&D performance of their cities by using their related data. As the worst R&D city performances belong to the eastern part of Turkey, it can be deducted that the socio-cultural structure of the eastern part of the country needs improvement.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study which applies a GIS-based MCDM approach for R&D performance measurement. Thus, the value of this paper belongs to both literature and real life.